4 ms·

> Every year I hear one student repeat the same argument that Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, or some other figure could cure global warming, world hunger, or other con

by HWR_14 2y ago

> Every year I hear one student repeat the same argument that Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, or some other figure could cure global warming, world hunger, or other concerns and still have millions left over. Some people truly believe this. The annual cost to eliminate world hunger is estimated to be $6 billion - $23 billion. A US treasury level return on the combined fortunes of Bezos and Gates would be around the higher number. The rough math checks out on the two of them combined ending world hunger forever. Even if they keep millions.

nradov 2y ago
Those cost estimates are nonsense, way too low by orders of magnitude. Since the invention of the Haber-Bosch process (nitrogen fertilizer), major world famines haven't been caused by a lack of food or even money for food. The actual causes have always been political: incompetence, corruption, and violence. For example, during the 1983–1985 famine in Ethiopia which killed 1.2M people there was a drought, but the primary cause was war. The combatants used hunger as a weapon, and stole food from civilians and foreign aid supplies. How much would it cost to intervene in every conflict zone and impose peace? Look what happened in Afghanistan recently. The cost would be in the trillions if it's even possible at all.
- HWR_14 2y ago
  Those numbers don't take into account the cost of achieving world peace. The plans admit that people will still starve in wars. However, those numbers include things like creating more conflict-resilient infrastructure so fewer people starve in that case. Currently people are starving from lack of immediate money for food, for infrastructure to deliver it, etc. The interest off of the combined fortunes of Bezos and Gates would be enough to fix all the non-violent causes. Obviously, their fortunes are insufficient to fix climate change or achieve world peace. But world hunger is an actual solvable problem.
  - nradov 2y ago
    That's just completely delusional. There is no amount of money that can create conflict-resilient infrastructure. If billionaires want to donate money to hunger relief then great, it will likely do some good. But the reality is that in conflict zones and failed states, most of the money and food aid gets stolen by corrupt local officials or armed groups. Aid workers can't directly distribute food to the hungry because they literally get shot for trying. World hunger is not a solvable problem. The best we can manage is disaster relief in countries that are still mostly functional.
    - HWR_14 2y ago
      You can keep just saying it's impossible, but Oxfam and the UN have plans that use those two sums and claim to alleviate all non-violent causes for world hunger. The Oxfam plan also talks about plans to make the food system more resilient to effects like war. Instead of just saying it's impossible, please look up their plan and respond to it.
      - nradov 2y ago
        Which specific plans are you referring to? Please provide references. Oxfam and the UN do some good work on hunger relief. But the notion that some sort of plan can overcome extreme levels of corruption, theft, and violence is so ridiculous that it's unworthy of a serious response. The statements that I have seen from Oxfam and the UN on that issue have been so vague as to be meaningless. They essentially require good faith cooperation by the very militant groups that intentionally want to starve their enemies, or profit by embezzling money and stealing supplies.

by HWR_14 2y ago

nradov 2y ago

Those cost estimates are nonsense, way too low by orders of magnitude. Since the invention of the Haber-Bosch process (nitrogen fertilizer), major world famines haven't been caused by a lack of food or even money for food. The actual causes have always been political: incompetence, corruption, and violence. For example, during the 1983–1985 famine in Ethiopia which killed 1.2M people there was a drought, but the primary cause was war. The combatants used hunger as a weapon, and stole food from civilians and foreign aid supplies. How much would it cost to intervene in every conflict zone and impose peace? Look what happened in Afghanistan recently. The cost would be in the trillions if it's even possible at all.

HWR_14 2y ago
Those numbers don't take into account the cost of achieving world peace. The plans admit that people will still starve in wars. However, those numbers include things like creating more conflict-resilient infrastructure so fewer people starve in that case. Currently people are starving from lack of immediate money for food, for infrastructure to deliver it, etc. The interest off of the combined fortunes of Bezos and Gates would be enough to fix all the non-violent causes. Obviously, their fortunes are insufficient to fix climate change or achieve world peace. But world hunger is an actual solvable problem.
- nradov 2y ago
  That's just completely delusional. There is no amount of money that can create conflict-resilient infrastructure. If billionaires want to donate money to hunger relief then great, it will likely do some good. But the reality is that in conflict zones and failed states, most of the money and food aid gets stolen by corrupt local officials or armed groups. Aid workers can't directly distribute food to the hungry because they literally get shot for trying. World hunger is not a solvable problem. The best we can manage is disaster relief in countries that are still mostly functional.
  - HWR_14 2y ago
    You can keep just saying it's impossible, but Oxfam and the UN have plans that use those two sums and claim to alleviate all non-violent causes for world hunger. The Oxfam plan also talks about plans to make the food system more resilient to effects like war. Instead of just saying it's impossible, please look up their plan and respond to it.
    - nradov 2y ago
      Which specific plans are you referring to? Please provide references. Oxfam and the UN do some good work on hunger relief. But the notion that some sort of plan can overcome extreme levels of corruption, theft, and violence is so ridiculous that it's unworthy of a serious response. The statements that I have seen from Oxfam and the UN on that issue have been so vague as to be meaningless. They essentially require good faith cooperation by the very militant groups that intentionally want to starve their enemies, or profit by embezzling money and stealing supplies.